In recent years the New York Times has published more than its share of slippery apologias for Islam, but the op-ed it ran on September 2 in defense of sharia law was not only slippery but curiously feeble as well. Eliyahu Stern, an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale, harshly criticized the attempts currently underway in over a dozen U.S. states to pass legislation prohibiting the introduction in those jurisdictions of sharia courts. “Some of these efforts,” Stern lamented, “would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration….”

What to say about this? First, let’s be clear that even a sharia court whose authority was strictly confined to dietary and marital questions would be a matter for concern. Take marriage, for example. Under sharia, marriage is a very lopsided affair, rights-wise. A man can divorce his wife at will — all it takes is saying the words. (One sharia judge recently ruled that a brief text message from husband to wife is sufficient to end a marriage.) By contrast, a woman who wishes to split from her husband must submit to a lengthy and often very expensive process of litigation that may very well end with her being turned down and forced to return home. Under sharia, she has no automatic right to a divorce. (Indeed, under sharia she hardly has any right to anything.)

That said, however, to pretend that sharia law is concerned only with such relatively innocuous matters as dietary laws and marital quarrels is disingenuous in the extreme. Yes, some of those who are trying to introduce sharia courts in the U.S. indeed insist that they wish only to employ sharia to resolve disagreements in these and other harmless-sounding areas. But don’t fool yourself — once the door is open, the sky’s the limit. The whole premise of sharia, after all, is that it applies to everything in life — not just food and domestic quarrels. The notion of separating the state from religion is utterly alien to the spirit and the letter of sharia, which, as most readers of this site are already well aware, prescribes the death penalty for apostates, homosexuals, and adulteresses — and that’s just for starters.

Just take a glance at these excerpts from the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, ratified in 1990 by representatives of most of the world’s Muslim nations. They make it clear that, in Islam, sharia is all — its authority is universal and eternal, and it trumps any non-Islamic notion of human rights:

Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.

Every man shall have the right, within the framework of the Shari’ah, to free movement….

Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical labour of which he is the author; and he shall have the right to the protection of his moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided it is not contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.

There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.

Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

The Cairo Declaration, it should be noted, was a response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Muslim countries rejected because it was inconsistent with sharia law. If Muslim leaders acknowledge that sharia is incompatible with Western concepts of human rights, why can’t Professor Stern acknowledge it, too?

Anti-sharia laws, claimed Stern, would “stigmatiz[e] Islamic life.” No, they would recognize the reality of sharia law. Stern dismissed Newt Gingrich’s description of sharia as “a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States,” claiming that “[t]he crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.” But how does a crusade against a blindingly un-democratic system of law undermine democracy? How can banning a law built on intolerance and religious separatism constitute a blow to tolerance and assimilation? One object of sharia is to reinforce the “divide” between Muslims and infidels — how would prohibiting it create “a dangerous divide”? Every one of Stern’s arguments is precisely 180 degrees away from the truth.

If Stern had wanted to make a serious case that concern about the introduction of sharia in the United States is without foundation, the natural approach would have been to set out to demonstrate that sharia law is nothing to worry about. But, apparently recognizing that sharia is, in fact, very worrisome indeed, Stern took a different, and familiar, tack: He contended that to be concerned about sharia is, quite simply, to be a bigot. “The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security,” he wrote, “is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious. In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)” Stern proceeded to go on at length about the history of nineteenth-century European concern about Jewish law — all of which was utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. It seemed obvious that Stern was focusing on this history because he knew that if he had, instead, taken an honest look at sharia law, he would have defeated his own case.

Of course, what Stern was serving up here was the familiar (and absurd) conceit that in the Western world today, Muslims are what Jews used to be — the supreme victims of unjust prejudice from all quarters. No, Muslims are not the Jews of today; on the contrary, in both Europe and North America, everybody from writers, journalists, and professors to politicians, judges, and police officials tend to tiptoe around explosive truths about Islam in order to avoid offending adherents of the faith — a courtesy that these same parties extend to no one else, certainly not Jews. (Consider, for example, the staggering refusal of military officials and others to recognize the Fort Hood massacre as an act of jihad.) Meanwhile, these same parties who are so worried about offending Muslim sensitivities do not hesitate, at least in Europe, to lash out at Jews and Israel at every opportunity. Anti-Semitic bigotry — both by Muslims and by ethnic Europeans — is, now as then, Europe’s prejudice du jour.

Stern went on to celebrate the fact that twentieth-century America was built on “a Judeo-Christian ethic, respecting differences and accentuating commonalities among Jews, Catholics and Protestants,” and to argue that today that Judeo-Christian ethic needs to be expanded into “an Abrahamic ethic that welcomes Islam into the religious tapestry of American life.” All of which sounds very lovely — until you actually read the Koran and understand that Muslims are expected to regard it as having literally been dictated by Allah, expected to consider even the most brutal of its directives as binding on believers for all eternity, and expected to take to their hearts the repeated injunctions not to befriend infidels and the multitudinous exhortations to exult in the eternal torment that awaits Christians and Jews in the afterlife.

Stern further argued that forbidding sharia law in the U.S. would amount to “legally sanctioned discrimination.” No, what would amount to discrimination would be accepting the idea of one law for Muslims and another law for everyone else. (And sharia law itself, of course, with its systematic subordination of women to men — in a sharia court, a women’s testimony is worth half a man’s — is by its very nature discriminatory.) And he suggested that this campaign against sharia courts in the U.S. is rooted in the notion “that American Muslims are akin to certain extreme Muslim groups in the Middle East and in Europe.” Stern dismissed this concern, arguing that “American Muslims are a different story.”

But this, too, is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether a given set of Muslims are terrorists or the most peaceable of people; sharia is sharia. A majority of American Muslims may well be well integrated and personally tolerant — but sharia law neither assimilates nor tolerates. Stern appeared to be admitting as much when he maintained that American Muslims, in time, “will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values.” Well, let’s wait and see. But until it happens, why allow sharia courts to operate within the borders of a free and democratic republic?

“Anti-Shariah legislation,” Stern warned, “fosters a hostile environment that will stymie the growth of America’s tolerant strand of Islam.” But he’s got it precisely backwards. There’s nothing whatsoever “tolerant” about sharia. Why should banning a system of law that is intolerance itself hinder the growth of a tolerant Islam? Stern concluded: “The continuation of America’s pluralistic religious tradition depends on the ability to distinguish between punishing groups that support terror and blaming terrorist activities on a faith that represents roughly a quarter of the world’s population.” Once again, Stern was avoiding the real subject: this isn’t about terrorism, it’s about sharia law. And yes, while only a tiny minority of Muslims commit terrorism, sharia law applies to everyone.

Stern’s article, as it happens, came a day after the website of the Norwegian journal Minerva reported on a debate about Islam and secular society that had taken place on Facebook and been reposted on the website of IslamNet, Norway’s largest Muslim organization. The debate began with a posting by one Mohamed Abdishazan to the effect that much of sharia “belongs to a specific time in our history (during the prophet’s life)” and that today there is a need to separate “religion and politics” and to “reform” Islam’s approach to human rights.

This brought a furious reply from Fahad Qureshi, head of IslamNet: “so you think that Allah (PBUH)’s religion in its original form does not possess human rights? You know that this is kufr [infidel thinking]…and if this is so then you are a kafir [infidel] according the ijma of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah [i.e. according to Muslim scholars].”

Qureshi was far from alone in being enraged at Abdishazan. Somebody calling himself Al Suhaymin rejected the idea of a country not ruled by sharia; Fatima Al-Noor warned that “one can NOT deny Allah’s laws just because we do not see the wisdom behind these laws, or perhaps because these laws don’t suit a kuffar [infidel] society. Allah’s laws are meant for all time….to say that I am against them and want a change is KUFR!”

For good measure, Qureshi cited a fatwa in which the Saudi Arabian salafist Shaykh Ul Islam Abdulazeez ibn Baaz (1910-99) had written that sharia laws “may not be rejected by anyone, nor may they be altered…whoever claims that something else is better is a disbeliever, as is the one who claims that it is permissible to act in defiance to it…it is a duty of those placed in authority to order him to turn to Allah in repentance if he is a Muslim; he either does so or he should be killed as a disbelieving apostate from Islam.” Ibn Baaz’s fatwa quoted from the hadith (sayings of Muhammed): “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” That’s sharia in a nutshell, folks.

The IslamNet debate was illuminating in several ways. Abdishazan’s postings made it clear that there are Muslims in the West who do indeed want to be free of the dread yoke of sharia; the postings by Qureshi and his supporters made it clear that there is, at the same time, a good deal of support for sharia in Western Muslim communities. (A survey a few years back showed that no fewer than forty percent of British Muslims would like to see sharia law implemented in the UK.) And all of the postings showed that the participants on both side of this debate know very well what sharia law is. Whether they support it or not, they recognize very clearly that it’s incompatible with secular democracy and with a Western conception of human rights.

What’s Professor Stern’s problem, then? Surely he doesn’t fail to understand the truth about sharia that all these Muslims on IslamNet obviously understand? Surely his comment about Muslims “adjust[ing] their legal and theological traditions…to accord with American values” indicates that he is well aware of the incompatibility of sharia with secular democracy? Why, then, go to such awkward and feeble lengths to argue for its introduction into the U.S.? The answer lies in the inscrutable motives of the dhimmi — the bemusing readiness to betray the very best of the West in order to placate the very worst in Islam. How fortunate for the New York Times to have found yet another kindred spirit in the hollowed halls of old Eli!

116 Comments, 63 Threads

1.
Kevin

People tiptoe around these issues because they are afraid. This is why terrorism is powerful. Ten years after 9/11 and look at this crap. Insidious. Seeping into our culture and society. People afraid to stand up to bs like this. What, do you think they will come for you last?

I’ll be damned if I’ll tolerate an ounce of sharia law being shoved down my throat, no matter how slowly. Not in this country. Knuckle up, Americans..

Shariah will never be jammed down your throat. It will creep in on the pages of the dailies, chewed up to fit within our framework by the judges, and enforced by the man in blue. Your choice will be like the Jews in 1930′s Germany. At what point do you decide the government is really AGAINST you and your family! You are a frog in the pot and the water is getting warm. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution could be the line we use to sift friend and foe. NO visas, NO aid, NO TAX MONEY of ANY KIND to countries and people that don’t support the First Amendment! OR, we can continue to whine about it not feeling right and wondering how this is happening to us.

Yeah, it’s gonna be shoved down your throat because the Left is betting you aren’t gonna do anything about it. If you “won’t tolerate” something, the only question becomes: “what are you gonna do when it comes to a head?” It either stops or it doesn’t. The Founders decided that they weren’t going to tolerate any more decrees from King George III. So they didn’t — they got armed and started killing British soldiers and Tory sympathizers. Anything less than ending a practice is, I’m afraid, ‘tolerating’ it. Looking at what Americans have been tolerating since 1933 (if not 1865), I can’t see anybody fighting because sharia law is imposed. Toleration is a learned response (strangely enough, that response is submission, or as they say in Allah-land, Islam), and Americans have learned it well.

I wrote a paper using your analogy about the frog in boiling water. LOL and your absolutely correct. It’s funny how these same people preach about separation of church and state yet they embrace Islam which demands the opposite. I think people just had a problem with christianity and used this as a gimick to push their bs. People would have to be blind to believe that this is not creeping our way. All over the U.K. and Europe there are blasphemy laws that prohibit criticizing islam. They’ve carefully disguised them with politically correct titles like “insulting ones heritage or religion”. Yet, if you look closer it’s the Islamist goons that are pressuring the officials to enforce this with an iron fist. Look at Dearborn, a mini Islamic republic.

This is also the mind set of the WH; remember all the journalists given jobs in the administration.

Obama is meddling with a very dangerous enemy; Islam. All these things are happening because Obama continues to hold the door open for Islam; he’s the one in authority and therefore we are the ones that suffer the consequences.

Isn’t aiding and abetting an enemy called ‘treason’? Oh wait a minute; to avoid that charge the WH has forbidden anyone to “name” our enemy. I wonder why?
Sharia is slavery; pure totalitarianism. Islam is slavery (slaves of Allah) and it’s pure evil and contrary to EVERYTHING upon which this nation was founded. We are now able to bring home (maybe) from Libya the remains of some of the American casualties of our wars with Islam.

This is a very sad day … and only a few days away from the commemoration of 9/11. Enough is enough, this administration has shown its true colors. And the NYT?? Carrying the water for the current administration.

“But, apparently recognizing that sharia is, in fact, very worrisome indeed, Stern took a different, and familiar, tack: He contended that to be concerned about sharia is, quite simply, to be a bigot.”

And there it is. The last resort of a person losing an arguement in modern times.

Aside from his retrograde views, Fahad Qureshi is apparently not even a decent Islamist. “PBUH” – “peace be upon him,” – is uttered after the name of Muhammad, not after God’s name. Uttering such a thing after the word “Allah” implies that God is dead. Surely that’s a kufr notion if there ever was one.

As much as I may disagree with the Opinion published by the NYTimes (or for that matter, disagree with 90% that the NYTimes now deems newsworthy), the fact is that it is not an opinion of the NYTimes or its editorial board. Its is an opinion of an outside scholar on a topic of some interest. The NYTimes also publishes opinion pieces by conservatives that they disagree with, much like the WSJ publishes pieces by liberal spokesman that they would generally disagree with.

That being said, I couldn’t disagree more with the opinion of the author of the opinion piece. This is a country with a separation between church and state. Sharia law is in direct contravention of this basic tenant.

What’s profoundly depressing about Mr Bawer’s response is the absurd fear of Sharia.
Not because the idea of sharia law operating in a country with a civilized system of law, like the US, is not repugnant – it is, and contemptible. There is no place for primitive theocratic laws to operate in a modern, civilized liberal democracy.
No, what is depressing is the prospect that pockets of Sharia might get a foothold in the freest, most prosperous, most successful society in history. It’s nothing less than an marker on the road to ruin, that such a thing could be contemplated, and feared, in the US of all places, and is due to one thing – a nation hopelessly divided, and so confused.

It’s nothing less than an marker on the road to ruin, that such a thing could be contemplated, and feared, in the US of all places, and is due to one thing – a nation hopelessly divided, and so confused.

The reason for the fear is that sharia can be accepted into American society because of the ignorance and naivety of a large part of the population.
If a Professor from one of the country’s most prestigious places of learning can write such rubbish in an opinion piece published in America’s most widely influential rag what can one expect from a public blinded to reality by the PC censorship sheltering Islam from general discussion?

It’s not an absurd fear, and being afraid of it does not empower it. America is filled with too many incurious chuckle-heads like yourself for any of us to feel confident that it could never insinuate itself here.

It may not be an absurd fear in that sense, but it is absurd in the sense that, if a clear majority of Americans condemned the idea, loudly and with disdain, rather than apologetically and fearfully, Sharia could never hope to insinuate itself into American society.

The same attitude towards militant Islamism would not eradicate the threat from it. But much of the fear stems from a sense of impotence. While a substantial part of the population reacts to this ragtag pack of brutal, primitive religious psychopaths by uttering excuses and apologies, the rest of us fight it with one hand tied behind our back.

Fifth columnist traitors are in the country. What else would you expect from such people than defending use of sharia law here when we already have a constitution in use over 300 years. This moron op-ed writer either doesn’t know Islam and Muslims or he is knows them too well and is working for them!!

“Let’s be clear that even a sharia court whose authority was strictly confined to dietary and marital questions would be a matter for concern.”

Ya think? I’m sure all of those divorce lawyers out there would be happy to learn that they have been replaced by a guy in a turban. And that all those years in law school can be just thrown away because some religious group says they are no longer needed.

No local, state, or Federal law should be replaced by ANY religious law. And where are the liberals in all of this? Aren’t they the ones that are always screaming about the “Separation between church and state?” Now you have a group of people who want to literally replace civil law with a religious law. And this is OK with the people at the ACLU? Well, if it is, then not only are they hypocrites, they also are liars because they have no intention of really defending the laws of this land. The Federal government and the Attorney General should also step in on this and stop anyone from trying to replace local laws with Sharia law.

Another foolish politically correct liberal, who is obviously uneducated about sharia law and the havoc it creates, particularly on women. Those who worship the moon god of this created religion mainly use it to political, self, and social advantage, and at minimum shove it down the throats of non-believers, and at worst cut the throats of the “infidels”. Ask the 3 daughters who were murdered by their own father for “honor” after being raped by Libyan rebels how much they like sharia law.

Eliyahu Stern is an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale. The fact that he teaches at this Ivy league university indicates that he is probably a second rate scholar. One can take for granted that mostly politically correct and intellectually mediocre people obtain positions at such an academic institution.

I’m with you and everybody else appalled by the NYT article(but not surprised)
However, be careful: I tracked that three daughters report and could come up with nothing but hearsay.

Islam lovers(liberals) love it when something like that turns up to be untrue or unverified. Be particularly wary of JIhadwatch: they are a tad over-enthusiastic at times. I check all their reports before using them in my arguments against Islam.

Abdishazan’s postings made it clear that there are Muslims in the West who do indeed want to be free of the dread yoke of sharia…

Nevertheless, when pressed by their more aggressive and militant co-religionists, they will fall into line, both with sharia and the public advocacy thereof. Not to do so would expose them to far too much risk.

The good old teaching that killing an apostate being acceptable keeps everyone in line. The latent impulse to derive pride from supremacist feelings keeps everyone drooling. Such is the‘terrifying memeplex of Islam’ . No one ever really strays. Reform and Dissent are mere illusions, if not near impossibilities for a Muslim. Hence the need for force from without. Woe to the fool who thinks a faith will change that hasn’t changed at all in 1,400 years!!!

Roman Catholics have religious beliefs that differ from American legislation. They seem to handle it just fine, divorcing in American court and requesting annulments from the Church. Sure it’s a bit tougher on them; that’s what faith is all about. We could say the same about Mormons, Buddhists, and Wiccans, and probably about every other moderately demanding faith around.

If the Muslims need special rules in order to function in both a religious and secular way – well, that says little for their moral strength.

Bottom line: if other religions do okay without special courts and rules “sensitive” to their beliefs, I imagine the Muslims can handle it as well. Or they can move to a country that does have shariah law. That’s the beauty of emigration – you can generally find something consistent with what you say you want.

I’m a fully practicing Catholic; a major part of the Catholic faith is expecting that the world around us won’t like us and will make things difficult for us. 21st-century US certainly isn’t the worst situation we’ve “endured” (I mean, there’s a “Filet-O-Fish sandwich” created just for us!) but sometimes it’s very difficult to practice our faith.
So, from my POV, Muslims are a bunch of sissies: the men are so afraid of their own sexuality that the women have to hide themselves completely (no moral strength). Catholicism expects men to exercise restraint, whether they’re in 1st-century Magdala or 21st-century Las Vegas.
If you have to kidnap 16-year-old Pakistani Christian girls and FORCE them to convert in order to keep your religion going, it says to me that your message is lame. Like exercise strengthens your body, our faith is strengthened by practicing it in the face of hostile unbelievers.
They can’t win on regular battlefields; they have to blow themselves up in order to kill the enemy? War “fail”.

“Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)” I bet an assembly of Imams when presented with that same question concerning Sha’ria law would answer “heck yes that’s the whole point!”

By the way, is it “Kafir”, “Kufffar”, “KUFR”, or “Kaffir”? I would just like to know how to properly refer to myself if I ever stumble into a religion of peace chat room.

“Let’s be clear that even a sharia court whose authority was strictly confined to dietary and marital questions would be a matter for concern.”

because it is going to clash with the law of the land when honour killings, wife beatings and those other household happenings are considered; unless of course Muslims are exempt from homicide and rape charges if only the wife or daughter are involved.
Quick, get Congress to write that into the script.

Stern appeared to be admitting as much when he maintained that American Muslims, in time, “will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values.”

But then they won’t be true Muslims faithful to Islam because the Qur’an, on which Sharia is based, is inviolate and no doubt they would be considered apostates by Al-Azhar University which is the chief centre of Islamic learning in the world.

Why exactly a state separated from the church should be concerned about any kind of religious law, and why should outsiders (that includes both Mr Stern and Mr Bawer) discuss the merits of that law? The citizens should be able to decide between themselves who is right and who is wrong, and engage any third person or people they wish, referring to whatever rules they want, as much as you agree or disagree with those rules.

State should ignore the rulings of any such third person[s] based on any of those rules, should not enforce them or accept as justifications for unlawful acts. Should the state agencies believe that a third party knowingly facilitated or failed to prevent a crime, they should go after the enablers armed with the laws of the land and ignore all other laws.

As far as dietary markings are concerned, the products and outlets should carry logos of specific providers of certification rather than generic statements like “kosher” and “halal”, and manufacturers and vendors should make their own decisions which provider[s] of certification to use.

Just some information for all about Judaism and its laws. We, too, practice Jewish law as a separate system of laws from the civil laws of the State (and let me tell you that we have major problems about divorce laws that, hopefully, some day will be resolved withing the context of Jewish law). There are however some very major differences between Judaism and Islam. The first is that Judaism accepts the laws of the state. As the 3rd century Amora, Samuel, said: The law of the land is the law (in civil and criminal matters). Another difference is that Judaism does not want to impose its laws on anyone else and we respect other legal systems, looking on them as fulfillment of one of the Noachide laws. Finally, Judaism has no intention to dominate the world. Judaism looks forward to a time when all people of all cultures can live together in peace.

You mention Jewish law concerning divorce And another poster mentioned Catholic laws (or beliefs) on the subject. What neither one of you mention is the fact that your religions do NOT stipulate the death sentence if those laws are not obeyed. At least not on this earthly plane. The Catholics may be kicked out of their church and ostracized by the congregation but no one is going to start collecting stones. I don’t know how the Jewish religion handles such matters but I’m sure no one in their religion would either. ( At least not in this day and age!) If I understand under Sharia law, most anything you do could earn you the death sentence, especially if you are a lowly woman.

perry1949 – Here is the problem to which I was alluding: In Jewish law, the husband must divorce his wife. The wife cannot divorce her husband. Some husbands have abused the system to demand outrageous sums of money from the estranged wife before they will give a divorce. (Sound familiar?) I personally think that husbands who do that should be stoned. In my mind, they are abusing God’s law for evil purposes. Be that as it may, the worst that will actually happen to such husbands is that they will excommunicated, but that still leaves the undivorced wife in limbo, unable to remarry.

As I pointed out, this is our problem and I wouldn’t want to impose it on anyone else.

Excellent articles. Professors of religion rarely know anything about Islam–except that if conservatives (and Christians) dislike any aspect of it, it must ipso facto thus be defended. And since the “NY Times” editors think that only Christians are a threat to the Republic, such an article appearing in that rag is hardly surprising.
I wrote at length on the incompatibilities between shari`ah and our nation’s Judaeo-Christian bases last year: “Veiling Shari`a in a Judaeo-Christian Cloak” (http://hnn.us/articles/132605.html ).

There is a fundamental problem with sharia courts being established in the U.S. that I havent heard anyone articulate yet.

Citizens of the United States have certain inalienable rights which government in all its forms are duty bound to protect. If government fails to protect those rights, they do not disappear. The establishment of sharia courts would not evaporate those rights either. If citizens wish to resolve conflicts according to their own cultural standards they certainly may, but not at the expense of anyone’s rights. Ultimately we citizens are responsible for defending our inalienable rights. Should sharia courts be established in this country and begin violating those rights ( if established they inevitably will ) it is the duty of the government and of the citizens to destroy those courts.

If the dhimmis get their way, “inalienable rights” will pretty soon turn into “invisible rights”. You get a leftist majority on the US Supreme Court and your “inalienable rights” will fall like skittles. “Human Rights” legislation, these days, favours the criminal over the law-abiding; the vociferous minority over the quiescent majority; the immigrant, even the illegal type, even the self-confessed terrorist, over the locally born. This is happening both sides of the Atlantic. Suppose an Algerian librarian and an Algerian terrorist both arrive at Heathrow and ask to be permitted to stay indefinitely. Which, do you suppose, will be headed back to Algeria within the hour? The US may not be that mad yet, but four more years of you-know-who would assuredly make it so.

Well, people go to court because what both of them want doesn’t add up to what is available, in terms of intentions that are conflicting or in terms of money. Any decision not based on the law of the land, unless 100% identical, will deprive one of the parties of what they are entitled by the law of the land by giving more to another party.

It is not necessary for Muslims to insist that we formally write aspects of sharia into our legal codes, we are already yielding to it in numerous ways. Want to add a headscarf to your uniform, OK [even if working as a TSA screener] Want separate gym and pool hours for Muslim women, OK. If you are a non-Muslim and want to bring a ham sandwich to work, don’t eat anywhere near a Muslim unless you want to get involved in some PC nightmare. Just like the highway YIELD signs, we have errected cultural YIELD signs, and it is the obligation of the infidel to YIELD to the oncoming Muslim.

“It is true that Sharia is being used elsewhere around the world in dangerous ways. While Sharia law can address many daily public and private concerns, it is nonetheless subject to radical interpretation by individuals or groups who subscribe to a more puritanical form of Islamic jurisprudence. Some individuals try to interpret Sharia law for their own radical agendas. It raises more serious concerns when it comes to implementing Sharia law in its entirety, as can be seen with the examples of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Taliban. But that certainly doesn’t apply to America, where concerns about a “creeping Sharia law” are the stuff of pure paranoia.”

Jewish defender/enablers of Islam – Mayor Bloomberg comes to mind- are reminiscent of the head of a Judenrat in an Easter European ghetto. He work son the deportation lists, maybe taking out friends and adding enemies,and one day is utterly aghast when the smiling SS officer hands him the days list, with his name at the top.

“one day is utterly aghast when the smiling SS officer hands him the days list, with his name at the top.”

It brings to mind the feminists and homosexuals and others who have spent decades “throwing stones” at the Christian Church and the Jewish 10 Commandments and cheered as western civilization fell into ruin.

They too will be stunned and aghast when they find themselves in a new culture that will gleefully throw stones back at them.

There is only one guiding law, in the US, that applies to all who live here. That law is the US Constitution. Anyone not willing to live by that document’s principles, should leave and go back from whence they came.

I know! It’s so simple, isn’t it? You want to live under Sharia law? Move to a country where Sharia IS the law! We don’t want to, that’s why we live here, you need to leave.

SenatorMark4 has it right: “NO visas, NO aid, NO TAX MONEY of ANY KIND to countries and people that don’t support the First Amendment! OR, we can continue to whine about it not feeling right and wondering how this is happening to us.”

They will just keep at it until they get a leftist judge, or whacked out legislature (CA or NY know how to “submit”)to give them the small openings they need. Eventually, those small openings will become gaping chasms. That is how the far left, which is a reasonably small percentage of Americans, has been incrementally imposing their will on this country for decades.

Muslims groups are setting up confrontations that they hope will cause a company, individual or, if they really hit it big, a government entity to do something– anything– that can be spun as discrimination. Then there is a rush to the hand-picked judges at hand-picked courts to try to get a ruling that sets a precedent. That is the game they have learned from the left, and there is no evidence that the game has changed in any meaningful way.

Sharia Islam is the monster that was allowed into our society by those who advocate allowing Muslms to arrive in the West in their millions. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly are all twisted and perverted under the regime of Islam into Jihad to establish and explained the dictatorship of Islam I our unbelieving lands.
Elsewhere at this site, David P. Goldman called me “stupid” for suggesting that Muslims should be excluded from the West. He ignored the fact that as long as Muslims reside here in significant numbers, the march towards Sharia totalitarianism is inevitable. There has been no cohesive movement by Muslims against this creeping sharia. In fact, the higher the Muslim density in any area, the higher the intensity is among them to begin imposing stricter Islam. It is rarely discussed, but in places like Dearborn, sharia is already being practiced. The so-called “moderate Muslims” that their buddies always tout haven’t a leg to stand on when it comes to opposing the more fervent Muslims in their community.

Islam is on the side of all the supposedly “radical” groups – they have the religious texts to back them up, and they have the weapons of violence, terror, accusations of apostasy (for which death is mandated) and all the rest against anyone who opposes them. With these weapons they will always easily defame and intimidate anyone who wishes to separate Islam from it’s terroristic anti-Western basis.

Islam doesn’t belong in the West. The battle between those who wish to supposedly reform Islam will always falter to the forces of those who take their Islam seriously. People in the West who suggest that our nations should be the testing ground where this nightmarish battle takes place are condemning us to an inevitable spread of a population and and ideology which is anathema to our civilization. In short, they are forcing the civilizational poison of Islam down our throats under various lie based and delusional pretexts, and they are abetting the annihilation of our culture and our hard won freedoms and rights in the porcess. It may take a long time, but eventually we will be forced, under threat of violence, to cede territory to Muslims, just like India did to Pakistan, in the hopes of avoiding all out Jihad. But the all out jihad is already taking place, and it always will wherever Muslims reside.

MD,
Exactly–as I spelled out in my earlier-linked article (http://hnn.us/articles/132605.html). Islam and its actualization shari`a are not simply Judaeo-Christianity with an Arab patina–they are a different system altogether.

This is all so dead-bang right it makes me catatonic with frustration at people who don’t get it. Shame on Mr. Goldman and everyone else like him….but somebody far above our pay grades said it right: “They know not what they do.” Of even greater concern than his effrontery, is the quality of the thought processes behind it, which bears an uncanny resemblance to that of people who jump off tall buildings so they can fly. There is no intellectual superiority demonstrated by a line of thinking that results in your death, except for that of those who die defending the lives or freedom of others.

The barbarians are not only at the gates, they are here, now, and their clear intentions are beyond dispute. I love folks who smugly think they’ve wrapped up all discussion with tidy little statements like, “They just need to evolve.” How does that help US, NOW??!! We need to be gravely concerned about safety in the short term, and about the preservation of our culture, of which we are not only the beneficiaries, but far more importantly, the stewards!

Even as it stands now in tatters, America is still the greatest country on earth—because it’s the greatest IDEA on earth. We do not owe them (or anybody else unwilling to live by the highest set of “rules” yet devised for civil order, prosperity, and comity) a theatre in which to evolve, purchased at the cost of its destruction. This group has proven irrefutably that its evolutionary speed is glacial, and we simply haven’t got that kind of time! On the other hand I can think of about 50 other countries around the globe where they would feel right at home, unthreatened by infidels and unembarrassed by the desultory rate of progress their questionable level of motivation would yield.

You know, Roger, when we were growing up, a point of great mystery and wonder was how on earth a sophisticated civilization like Germany succumbed to the horrors of Nazism.

Now, in 2012, with a Communist in the White House fomenting class and racial violence, we know. Apparently, if you move slowly, lie through your teeth and have charismatic front men run intereference for you, it’s as easy as pie.

Most of the article is spend comparing the situation of Jews and Moslems. How this for an analogy-

Two guys wind up in jail. One is innocent, one is guilty. The ” Professor ” demands they both be released. His justification? They are both in jail.

Judaism renounces proselytization as evil. Islam commands it even by force.

Judaism requires Jews be loyal citizens of any country they live in. Islam demands it practitioners wage war against the countries they live in unless they are Islamic countries.

Judaism considers murder a sin. Islam considers murder a good deed.

Jewish courts permit non-Jews to testify and bring suits with the same authority as Jews. There are no second class citizens in a Jewish court. Sharia law does not allow a non-Moslem bring a lawsuit against a Moslem and the testimony of non-Moslems caries no weight.

I could go on but I’m sure you get the idea. The ” Professor ” is guilty of ignorance of both Judaism as well as Islam. One can only conclude his political motivation overrides his concern for scholarship. I pity his students.

When are we finally and fully going to realize that the 20% leftists in our center-right country are not our friends, that they have been and still are dishonest and that they have been and still are destructive to our loved ones?

A recent poster on a Victor Davis Hanson thread even suggested that we openly charge certain leftist leaders in government and maybe the media and academia with treason. Yes, treason. Not for the purpose of inpeachment or dismissal, but to create such a stink and such an uproar as to bypass the leftist media and bring awareness to and expose the left to the public once and for all… for who and what they really are.

Whatever the answer is, we can no longer keep kicking the can down the road.
Simply put… we are running out of road.

The redefinition that gripes me — partly because Republicans are now adopting it — is “revenues.” What Obama actually means is “taxes” (as in something to raise). The irony is that on this side of the rabbit hole, revenues and taxes are inversely proportional; raise one, and the other falls.

Shari’ah has evolved over 14 centuries post- Mohammed under the direction of self-interested and controlling men who, it would seem, primarily wanted to enshrine into Islamic law their own versions of how individuals must live.

Perhaps one line in a single Sura in the Koran (such as Mohammed’s women covering their hair when the marauders came around) has evolved to justify the complete head to toe covering of women in a macabre garment. One sentence in the Koran about icons justified the Taliban destruction of the magnificent Bamiyan Buddhas which, although not Islamic symbols, had nevertheless been integral to Afghan culture. Mohammed consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was age 9, and thus the Ayatollah re-instituted marriage to 9 year old girls when he came to power in Iran after the Shah.

On and on it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

The controlling principles underlying all aspects of Shari’ah are antithetical to the principles of individual liberty in which America’s system of governance is based.

Proponents of Shari’ah now are intent on making inroads into basic American principles. Reportedly, Imam Rauf intended one entire floor of the multi-story mosque proposed for lower Manhattan to be dedicated to the Sharia Index Project, a major attempt to infuse Shari’ah into American law and life.

Anyone living in this country is living only under American law, no other versions need apply.

If individual American states (like Oklahoma) come to feel challenged by Shari’ah, that is unfortunate and a sign of weakness or lack of confidence in simply applying American law to all individuals residing in this country. However, pressure from certain Muslims living in the United States can be relentless.

(a big brouhaha last week somewhere about the headscarf and riding a roller coaster. Many Muslims planned to celebrate the end of Ramadan at Six Flags, Texas. Did they, too, make a fuss and issue demands, organized by CAIR and some other Muslim Assn. ?)

(hey guys, when in Rome…)

It all seems fairly straightforward to me.

So called multiculturalists, and perhaps individuals like Prof. Stern and his cohorts, make it unduly complicated. The more confused we get under this kind of pressure, the happier many Islamists are.

Most of the liberal religious critics, and the political and religious theorists who follow them, espouse (more or less) the religious philosophy of Karen Armstrong, the British ex-nun who writes extensively on religion and has won awards and acclaim from moderate or liberal religious scholars in all three faiths. Her basic view (which I’ll try to paraphrase semi-coherently) is that all 3 monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) were pretty much gender-neutral when they started, but men took them over and turned them into vehicles for sexism, extremism, and political control.

The relevance of this to the article above is obvious if you consider that Jewish and Christian (espeially Catholic) authorities conduct what amount to religious courts, where cases are more or less decided without recourse to the secular legal system. Jewish religious leaders (especially in the more Orthodox portions of the faith) have courts that essentially arbitrate disputes between Jews, over business, marriange, and the like. The difference is that these Jews have no interest in imposing their belief system on anyone else, and accept that the court system should be used whenever the dispute is with someone who isn’t a coreligionist; Muslims accept no such restrictions, in much of the Arab world anyway, and extremists seem to believe that Sharia can be imposed on everyone here, either in cases involving Muslims, or in all cases regardless.

If we can convince them to adopt the example of the Jews (always a tough sell in the Arab world, anyway) then this might not be bad. It would serve as instruction in the separation of church and state, something most Muslims find confusing, ridiculous, or downright sacriligious. On the other hand, if we can’t get them to kee their hands, and their Sharia, to themselves, then yes, I think this is a cause for considerable concern.

No, my friends, Shariah is here to stay so long as Islam remains a living religion. Pray for the souls of muslims worldwide who are seeking a relationship with God that they might find Him. Let the others have their toes rot off.

39…Laura, you say the NY Times is subversive and treasonous. Pretty strong language. So I guess you think Zero, as a President, is subversive and treasonous. Incidentally, if you did think that, on both counts you’d be correct. Which is why nobody seriously reads the Times anymore, and why the chances of Obama running again are slim and none.

On behalf of the educated and more cosmopolitan Americans in the US (which number more than these high school drop-outs), I apologize. I know yours is an ancient culture which has given us Chemistry, Algebra, Calculus and Philosophy. We (Westerners) actually stand to learn from you, but some of us are too proud to see our own ignorance (too much FOX News can do that to you).

Since Islam was founded in 622AD, I would say that the ancient Greeks would be amazed that what they practised was not ‘philosophy’. Hmmm. What about Confucius…what were his sayings…limericks? Ancient Egyptians used principles of chemistry in their medicines, cosmetics and mummification methods. Calculus, as it is known to us, was invented by either Isaac Newton or Leibnitz in the 17th century – India and Islam developed antecedents to calculus pretty much concurrently. Finally, the Babylonians were using algorithms 4000 years ago to calculate unknown factors in equations, i.e. algebra. Surely, Dr Williams, you expect your students to do more research than you do?

Ibn Rushd (Averoes), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Al-Kindi, Khayyam, Al-Tusi, Al-Khwarizmi, Al-Farghani, etc. etc. ring a bell? Of course the Classics were from the Greeks, but how did Western civilization come to receive this? Also, I’m a fan of Chinese, Mayan, Babylonians and Persian cultures, to include many other traditions, you are correct they contributed considerably, but my point is more towards the original post. I am simply reminding you people that much of what we see before us came via Islamic (yes, Islamic) civilization. Sir Newton, Liebnitz and other Western thinkers “stood on the shoulders of giants (see above names again)”.

‘…Islamic (yes, Islamic) civilisation.’
Anything before Mohammed founded the religion of Islam in 622AD, must, in the interests of accuracy, be termed Arabic, which would include many different beliefs of the preceding centuries. The current Islamic nations occupy, amongst others, lands that once belonged to Mesopotamia, Babylonia (currently Iraq mostly), Sumer…I could go on…but I am contesting your assertion that it is Islam only that gave us these concepts – it was not Islam, it was the collection of peoples who made up the region of ‘Arabia’ (as Westerners term it).

The above weren’t just Arabs or Arabic or however revision of history you want, more importantly they were Muslims and credited their religion for their quest of knowledge. And because these men and women of Muslim faith were the bearers of these “ancient” knowledge (which would otherwise have been lost to humanity), they must be credited as Muslims. When the Mongol hoard invaded Muslim lands, they destroyed, but after they were converted to Islam they reaped the benefits of progress–the Mughal Empire is one great example. Western civilization took more from Islamic civilization, period.

You can not say that Muslims invented or developed anything before Islam was invented in 622AD. Do you not understand that? There was no Islam before Mohammed founded it. I would have thought that I didn’t have to make the issue so simple for you.

I find no connection between ancient achievements of the Arabic/Persian world and modern day radical Islamists, i.e., those Muslims today whose imperative is to develop the worldwide Ummah and infuse principles of Shari’ah into “western” civilizations.

I find no need to celebrate or deny any past human achievements of any cultural group anywhere in order to oppose Islam’s real time attempts at resurgence throughout the world. The repugnant imperative to slaughter or enslave the infidel drives most modern jihadists, a small percentage of Muslims, but, obviously, a very active one.

But achievements of the past have no bearing on agendas of the present. Not to mention that radical imams and Salafists/Islamists in the spirit of Osama bin laden could not and would not evolve anything worth knowing and keeping, at least relative to the achievements of their ancestors.

I consider it near criminal that young boys in certain madrassas in Pakistan sit all day memorizing a single book in a language they don’t even speak.

I seriously doubt you are the person selected by “educated and more cosmopolitan Americans in the US” to speak on their behalf, especially since that “speaking” is just a grovelling apology.

There are approximately 1700 major universities in the Islamic world. In the middle east, only one has an academic ranking in the top 200 in the world. A total of 2 are in the top 299, with American University in Beirut at #300.

The number of international scientific patents that are filed in the middle east is so small as to be negligible.

That you have to go back to the beginning of civilization to find something to praise the region for (as Obama also did in his grovelling Cairo speech) seems a bit desperate.

But then, you are the cosmopolitan PhD who has to drag FOX news into the discussion, just like an ordinary troll might do. Come to think of it… the trolls also like to put PhD after their user name. What a coincidence.

Welcome to the discussion. I am not debating or comparing patents or college rankings here. I’m merely pointing out that much of Western civilization came from Islamic civilization, and to belittle the main source of our philosophical and scientific knowledge and foundation is just sadly ironic. So, the key here is less Glenn Beck and more reading and interaction with other people and cultures.

Sirs, I do try to keep an open mind when it comes to Muslim followers of the Koran and such. Plus, you may be surprised how intently I read your posts containing the contrarian world view. However, I don’t appreciate being told I’m going to hell whether the soothsayer is Maxine Waters or a follower of the Koran.

But I do think all religions deserve respect.

Which is why I was so upset while attending a fraternity party at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.

In the bathroom heads where college students go to relieve themselves are drawings apparently scratched out in the porcelain of the prophet Muhammad. Incidentally, I checked the five stalls and, sure enough, Muhammad was under the water of each toilet bowl.

Naturally, I find this insulting to all followers of Muhammad, and reported it to the President of the fraternity who told me, “Muslims should be happy they’re not nuked when they kill innocent infidels.” Aghast, I almost slapped him in the face.

On reflection, though, after the whole sordid evening, my quandry is this.

Should I let this incident go by, wipe the slate clean so to speak, and consider it just a case of college men being silly? Or should I take it to a higher school authority. I’m leaning towards the former; to just forget it. But I’d feel better if you could set my mind at ease about one little aspect of the nasty, offensive situation.

If I don’t protest the action, and the picture of Muhammad stays there in the bowls, it would certainly help me sleep better if you assured me that the great prophet Muhammad can breathe underwater. Sincerly, Rachel Peepers.

How about allowing Sharia Law – and then taking every judgement to the US courts? As judgement after judgement is struck down, the injustices of Sharia would become apparent to all, and the contrary judgements in the US courts would make it unworkable.

Why does everyone keep referring to Islam as a religion with all of the religious benefits of the first amendment? It is a totalitarian governmental institution meant to replace the governmental institutions of the nations that it infiltrates.

Letting it’s laws creep into our society is only the beginning of the overall takeover. There will be a great battle soon enough and now is the time to prepare for that battle. Both physically and spiritually.

Let me ask a simple question. Should two merchants be permitted to agree to arbitrate a commercial dispute in before an arbitration panel that will apply Sharia law? I cannot think of any reason why not. They could agree to arbitrate under any law they choose – what possible reason could there be for not letting them apply Sharia law to a purely private commercial dispute? Nor can I think of any reason that the courts should not enforce any arbitration award resulting from such a dispute so long as the award was limited to the rights and obligations of the consenting parties and did not infringe any third party’s rights (which would be the case for any arbitration award under any chosen law). Note, too, that courts will not enforce arbitration awards that are against public policy – for example, if an arbitration panel decreed that one party should be lashed with a cat-of-nine-tails as punishment for breaching a contract, there is no US court that would enforce that award.

How about divorce? Well, in the US, religious divorces have no legal effect. Orthodox Jews who divorce in religious courts are nonetheless required to obtain a divorce decree from a court in order to be legally divorced. The reverse is also true. Orthodox Jews who obtain legal divorces are still married under Jewish law until and unless they obtain a religious divorce. This gives a lot of power to the man who can refuse the religious divorce and effectively prevent his ex-wife from remarrying. Nonetheless, the courts stay out of religious matters and will not order someone to agree to a religious divorce in order to give effect to their legal divorce.

How about child custody? Could two divorced parents agree to let an arbitrator decide who gets custody of their children, applying Sharia law? I don’t know. The law requires that child custody be determined by what’s in the best interests of the children and I don’t know if parents can agree otherwise – but if two divorced parents come to an agreement on child custody, in most cases that’s the end of it and the court won’t look any further. I suspect that would be the case even if the parents used Sharia law to determine custody.

Bottom line: There’s no reason to outlaw the ability of private parties to choose Sharia law to resolve their private disputes so long as the results are not contrary to public policy. There’s also no reason to think that any US court would ever apply Sharia law in interpreting or applying any civil or criminal law of the US. So what is all the fuss about?

So let me get this straight, When a father kills his daughters because they are becoming westernized then he is to be tried using Shariah, in other words nothing happens to him.

If his wife cheats (he says) then he stones them on American soil and he goes to a Shariah court and nothing is done that is OK.

What happens wit our Constitution then where men are created equal?? how does that work out.

You know when my grand parents came to America from Germany and Italy they came to be Americans they left their lives where they came from. Now we have people coming here to change America. I say SCREW THEM. If you do not like our laws leave.

This Shariah crap is just that CRAP. let them stay in their sand box if they want that law if not then they can come here and Become Americans and that means no rags on their heads and American laws.

The answer is no. No one so far as I know, not a single elected official, judge or lawyer, has ever said that Sharia law should displace US criminal law when a Muslim is accused of a crime in the US. If you commit a crime, you will be tried under state or federal law, period. Even in Detroit and its suburbs, where there is a large Muslim population, so far as I know no one has ever even suggested that judges do anything other than apply the laws of Michigan and the United States in criminal cases. Where people get the idea that such a thing might happen in the US is beyond me. And if anyone were to suggest any such thing, they’d be laughed out of town.

The only question is whether two Muslims should be allowed to agree that in arbitrating a private dispute between them, the arbitrators (whom they select by the way) would use Sharia law or Jewish law or the law of Ireland or any other law or code that they might choose to designate. I assume you have no objection to this – if you think freedom of contract has any meaning, then surely the right to agree to an arbitration contract ought also to be protected.

The story of what happened in the Shah Bano case (You can also read about it wikipedia,) in India is quite instructive.

The ancient land of India has been an example of dhimmitude for nearly a thousand years. Over the centuries Hindus have so fully internalized Sharia they don’t even know it. Such is the power of Islamic Memeplex . In India the word sharia is unknown. Instead ‘Muslim Personal Law’ is used as a euphemism for the same effect. There is no common civil law that applies to Muslims.

When the courts decided in the 1990s that Muslim women were entitled to alimony, the same as all other women of India, the wretched leaders of the corrupt Congress Party simply used super majority in parliament to amend the Constitution to overturn the courts’ verdict. This won them electoral favor with Muslims, Leftists and assorted anti-Hindu forces. Naturally, the reform minded minority amidst the Muslims lost spirit and shut up. The truculent fundamentalists won and were reinvigorated. The moderate middle class had it both ways and paid lip service with platitudes. All Hindus could come up with was tearing down an aging, disused, dilapidated shuttered mosque (which in turn was built over a destroyed temple.)

Exactly the same as happening in the USA with regard to all issues Islamic: ground zero mosque, Muslims in the military, sharia in town and campus. Americans are eager to show their secular credentials by even electing Muslims to some very high offices. A highly dispersed minority population is using the native legal culture to maximum advantage to destroy the host from within, while other forces attack from without (again a classic feature of the memeplex)’

It will all come back to destroy USA; nay it is destroying the USA of my dreams and promises. Will the gods of all faiths unite to keep America free?

PS: (Obviously, only a Hindu will think of ‘gods of all faiths uniting, eh!)

Obviously the “Connecticut lawyer” is oblivious to history and the world, especially Europe, since it is generally seen as the most similar in law to our own. I’m sure he’s scratching his head as to why many many sharia courts HAVE been established there, how that even “came to be”, how upset the rest of the normal people are, how entire sections of cities are virtually under “mob” rule, separated entirely by capita, and apart from the laws of the country, etc. Law is just paper. Reality is reality. And victims are victims.

Hello, Neat post. There is a problem along with your site in web explorer, might test this? IE still is the market chief and a large part of other people will omit your magnificent writing due to this problem.

You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I to find this matter to be really something which I feel I’d never understand. It sort of feels too complicated and very large for me. I am taking a look forward to your subsequent post, I?ll try to get the hang of it!

Pretty part of content. I just stumbled upon your blog and in accession capital to claim that I get in fact loved account your weblog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing to your feeds or even I fulfillment you get entry to constantly quickly.

Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification seemed to be on the net the easiest factor to understand of. I say to you, I definitely get irked even as people think about concerns that they just do not recognise about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest as smartly as defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , folks can take a signal. Will probably be again to get more. Thank you